2 ms·
That's interesting, explicitly to require that bugs be reproduced in CI. It makes sense in theory, but in praxis (IME) CI systems tend to be overtaxed / underpr
by chrisweekly 4y ago
That's interesting, explicitly to require that bugs be reproduced in CI. It makes sense in theory, but in praxis (IME) CI systems tend to be overtaxed / underprovisioned - meaning this extra burden might be questionable. /$.02
- nemetroid 4y agoThe same burden is present when splitting the two commits into two PRs.
- chrisweekly 4y agoActually no, the burden I referred to was -- unrelated to stacked vs serial PRs -- specifically the GP's practice of requiring that tests fail in CI. "rule that there must be 1 commit just introducing a test that fails on CI for bugfix PRs"
- dtech 4y agoGiven the cost a typical CI system vs the salary cost of a typical dev, the business case should be fairly easy that devs always should have CI capacity available.